This is jaw-droppingly wonderful! The photos are awesome and the story is fantastic! No American (fashion) magazine would ever dare do this. As the article says, when it’s done here, “it’s” being showing famous women without makeup, it’s along the lines of “Ewww! Look how UGLY these bitches are!”
I specified fashion magazines because People has been showing no makeup-positive photos in their Most Beautiful issues for years now, and they are always quite wonderful. Here’s a fantastic slideshow (except I think the black and white photos are a copout).
The whole article is worth a read. I love this because I never ever wear makeup. I can count the times on one hand that I’ve worn makeup in the last 30 years. But to be fair, I’m not the kind of woman who would be suddenly transformed into a raving beauty by makeup, whereas some women are. For me it would be like putting lipstick on a pig, not that I’m calling myself a pig, but it’s the concept. Makeup would do me no good at all, other than just make me feel uncomfortable and phony.
I remember I was shocked to learn recently that hose are out. Very few younger women wear hose nowadays. I didn’t know that, and I think’s it’s a fantastic step forward. Maybe younger (or other) women will start realizing that makeup isn’t all that, and it will start to die out. I have no personal stake in the matter, but it would be interesting.
(I don’t know if this should be in MPSIMS or not. I put it in Cafe because it’s about a magazine article. It can be moved).
23 year old checking in. I never wear make up either. I think the last time I did was my sister’s wedding in May of 2005 and even then I had to have someone else apply it because I’m clueless. On the other hand, I’m somewhat distressed about hose being out of style. I wouldn’t wear skirts to work if I couldn’t wear pantyhose with them. I don’t shave my legs and, while you can still tell easily that I’m a hairy legged weirdo :), I think hose smoothes things out a bit and lets me look a little more professional.
Thanks for sharing the article. It was nice to see stars looking like normal people and still being awesome looking.
Reminds me of Annie Lennox’s promotion for her album of a few years ago, Bare. The album cover doesn’t really have her without make-up but I remember seeing other photos from the session with no make-up at all. She has very pale lips, and it’s easy to see that fact might have led her into exploring the possibilities of make-up more than her peers.
Equipoise mentioned that she doesn’t wear make-up, and I can attest that she doesn’t need it. She has colorful lips and cheeks, and dark eyelashes - three things that pale women have to supply artificially.
I don’t mean to poop on this parade but I don’t see why this is a big deal. What are they trying to prove, that beautiful women are still pretty damn good looking even without makeup? Ugly women unfortunately remain ugly without makeup as well. And they’ve done the same amount of work to deserve it. Appreciating someone’s external beauty is always going to be superficial.
I’d say about 90% of someone’s appearance is due to genetics. The other 10% can be attributed to taking care of yourself by practicing good hygiene, skincare, diet and exercise etc. These things may be worthy of praise but the other stuff is just luck.
So I guess I’m saying that I don’t see the point they’re trying to make. They’re still glorifying a standard which most women will never meet, through no fault of their own. If the message is about being comfortable in your own skin, fine, but stick some ugly girls up there, preferably ones with impressive accomplishments that the average woman CAN aspire to.
Standard disclaimer: I’m a superficial male who likes seeing beautiful women like every other man and I fully expect to be judged on my own appearance by women, it’s how we operate.
Yeah they did. I had to ask since I actually found out about the song in reverse (cover then original)—Kate Bush’s is better, but theirs is interesting. Just had to check as it caught me offguard a little bit.
I disagree completely. I was a full-on 10 in my younger days. Mainly because I spent 35 hours per week in a dance studio and was ALWAYS hungry. I also spent about an hour per day on my hair and make-up (mostly the hair) and wore clothes so tight that they left deep marks on my skin.
Now I’d say I’m about a 4. Overweight, cropped hair, comfortable clothes, and twenty-five years older. But honestly it’s the life-style change that makes the most difference. I had the genetic ability to stay beautiful, I just wasn’t into the work and suffering that went along with it.
I think any woman has the ability through lifestyle changes and make-up (meaning, without surgery) to become at least a 7. MOST women could, through serious work and diligence become an 8. 10-hood requires a combination of all of these.
But most supermodels also are not 10’s in my mind. There are some serious flaws there - it’s just that the overall package is very alluring, and makes clothes look good.
One picture doesn’t prove anything. What makes them ugly without makeup? And how would you ever know? Gossip magazines aren’t in the process of publishing good “without makeup” pictures and when serious magazines do it, surprise surprise, they’re beautiful.
I’m a little surprised by the reactions to this as well. I’d expect most women to be happier if the “beautiful women” we see in movies, TV and magazines were actually plain and homely without the makeup, but these women are generally still beautiful without it. Wouldn’t you feel better about yourself knowing that they’re normal like everyone else, instead of being so happy for them that they’re still beautiful when they wake up in the morning?
